Re: Fedora developer portal - proof of concept

Hi everyone, I updated the prototype and tried apply your feedback: https://developer-phracek.rhcloud.com/ I removed everything random from the home page and changed it - so it better explains the purpose of the portal. The previous version was more about previewing the technology and

Re: Fedora developer portal - proof of concept

, du...@redhat.com Sent: Friday, 24 July, 2015 10:45:06 AM Subject: Re: Fedora developer portal - proof of concept On 23 Jul 2015 01:17, Adam Samalik asama...@redhat.com wrote: Hi everyone, I updated the prototype and tried apply your feedback: https://developer-phracek.rhcloud.com

Re: Fedora developer portal - proof of concept

: Nick Coghlan ncogh...@redhat.com To: Adam Samalik asama...@redhat.com, Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Fedora Environment and Stacks Working Group mailing list env-and-sta...@lists.fedoraproject.org, du...@redhat.com Sent: Monday, 27 July, 2015 6:41:40

Re: Fedora developer portal - proof of concept

Thank you all for the feedback! The site is just a prototype to see how the technology works and to be able to preview the content in a better way than reading markdown from the git repo. Fedora is made for developers - To be honest, I wasn't trying to write something great, I just added a

Fedora Developer Portal Update

Hi everyone, this is an update about the new Fedora Developer Portal project [1]: * The design implementation is almost done. See it live on http://developer.fedorainfracloud.org. Big thanks to Máirín Duffy! There are still some minor issues [2] to solve - we'll welcome any help with that. *

Re: [Developer-portal] Re: Preparing a new release of Fedora Developer Portal - asking for feedback

Hi Robert, the update does not include I18n. Using it is not on our plan - but that doesn't mean we don't want it. We just didn't think about it. If you want to help us with it, I will be more than happy to have it. But I'm not sure how it would work with all the content. Especially in terms of

Preparing a new release of Fedora Developer Portal - asking for feedback

' - disabled 'advertising reporting features' - basically, I want to use it only to track views and to see what is most popular I welcome any feedback or comments. Thank you! Have a great day, Adam Samalik -- Adam Šamalík --- Associate Software Engineer Red Hat -- devel

Fedora Developer Portal - update

I have just updated the Fedora Developer Portal with the following content. Big thanks to everyone who contributed! What's new: - Eclipse https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tools/eclipse/about.html by Alexander Kurtakov - Maintain and Improve

Re: [Modularity] BPO - the great UI that shows you everything

Thanks for the response. I agree, asking you "I am building something I haven't described, how do you want to use it?" might have not been the best idea... So please, let me try that again and better. :-) I have created a wiki page [1] that briefly describes the BPO component, what data would be

[Modularity] BPO - the great UI that shows you everything

Hi everyone, I would like to hear your opinion/need your help! I am working on a component of the Fedora Modularity[1] project, called Build Pipeline Overview (BPO). It will be a single user interface (probably both web and API) that would give you information about "everything". And I would

[modularity] New documentation website

We have moved the documentation of the Modularity project from wiki [1] to Pagure Docs [2]! The documentation is build using Python Sphinx with custom theme that also includes the home page. To edit the documentation, please send pull-requests against the source repository [3]. [1]

Re: [Modularity] Messing around with building modules

We definitely needed something like that, great! Do you think it would make sense to split the instructions into two parts? Something like: 1. Prepare your environment to make it work with our dev infra - "the stuff you won't need to do in the future" 2. Build a module - "The actual workflow"

Modularity basics - animations

Hey everyone, I have created two animations describing the basic concepts of modularity: 1) Fedora Modularity basic concepts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNLhcYEMgO0 2) What is a module? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=907pRakAjMU You can also find the same ones as an SVG animations here:

Re: Modularity basics - animations

, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Bernardo Sulzbach < mafagafogiga...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/2016 11:18 AM, Adam Samalik wrote: > >> Hey everyone, >> >> I have created two animations describing the basic concepts of modularity: >> >> > Hi, Adam. Would you

Re: Understanding the Fedora Modularity initiative (video + slides)

Nice feedback! I've managed to digest a half of it, so let me react to the first half and I will try to follow up with the rest later. :-) I don't know Solaris IPS (I'll definitely have a look), but from what I understood, it looks like they are delivering system components as multiple

[modularity] Building modules works with a little hack

Short version: If you want to build a module, edit your modulemd file, change "base-runtime" to "bootstrap" in dependencies, commit your change locally and continue as you would before - that means use the "build-module" script described on our documentation website [1] . Long version: We had

[modularity] First round of Boltron feedback published

The Modularity team has published a first round of Boltron feedback: https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/prototype/boltron/feedback.html Feedback is still being collected using the Boltron Walkthrough and UX feedback form: http://bit.ly/mod-walkthrough -- Adam Šamalík

Re: [modularity] First round of Boltron feedback published

Hey Subhendu, Glad that you like Boltron! Parallel instalation using containers, and in the future flatpaks, is on the plan. Adam On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 at 05:45, Subhendu Ghosh wrote: > Well done on Boltron - still kicking the tires. > > I for one, still want multi-version

[modularity] Modularizing the world fast and iteratively

Starting with a summary: ​Let's 1) use something like dependency-report scripts [1] to get coordinated, and 2) make the initial builds against bootstrap so we get a working thing fast and can iterate. I've realized that developing the initial set of modules for F27 could be a bit tricky in the

Re: Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Randy Barlow <bowlofe...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:17 +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > > You add the package and other people start to use it. That's great > > until you need to change the version, but can't, because oth

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 08/06/17 17:58, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:38:11AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> >>> Normally I ignore any Modularity discussion. It doesn't interest me, >>> and it doesn't affect any

Re: Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 08/06/17 18:54, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:48:27PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: >> >>> I mean it would probably still be quite daunting for somebody that >>> did want to get into more detail I guess

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

This enables us to have branches that make more sense for individual packages - so we can save work by having just one branch for one version acrsoss releases, or to offer more versions or "streams". A slide [1] from my recent talk demonstrates the possibilities - and also shows why branches are

Re: Package naming question

What about an analogy with 'createrepo'? We have: * createrepo * createrepo_c Using this same analogy: * parallel_rust * parallel_rs On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hello, > > I

Re: FESCo Elections - May 2018 : Results announcement

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 21:32, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "JB" == Josh Boyer writes: > > JB> I know we do a lot of rubber stamping because process requires it. > > This is one of the primary reasons why I lost interest in serving on > FESCo way back in the day. It felt like an endless

Re: Valid use case for modularity or not?

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 10:58 AM Petr Šabata wrote: > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 05:00:43PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:44 PM Neal Gompa

Re: Valid use case for modularity or not?

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM Adam Samalik <asama...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> > wrote: >

[modularity] Creating modules — docs updates

There have been some recent updates to the Making Modules section in Fedora Docs [1], especially Adding new Modules [2] and Defining Modules in modulemd [3] which will guide you through the whole process of creating a new module in Fedora. So I thought it's worth pointing out here. Also, let me

Re: Buildroot-only modules

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:23 AM Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > Some modules are built in MBS/Koji but are never released to users. > Currently such modules can only be used as build dependencies of other > modules. In future, if solution like "ursa-major" [1] is implemented, > such modules could

Re: [modularity] Managing module lifecycles — let's talk!

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:44 PM Paul Frields wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:26 AM Adam Samalik wrote: > > == Approaches > > > > Option 1: The current, yet unfinished approach > > > > We specify an EOL (end of life) date for each stream branch of > in

Re: [modularity] Managing module lifecycles — let's talk!

omponents, but that would just be > used to flag problems. > Something like this was one of my initial thoughts as well, glad you brought it up. Having a "forced module EOL", maybe as an optional override could be a good idea. > > Owen > > > On Wed, Aug 22,

[modularity] Managing module lifecycles — let's talk!

During the Modularity WG meeting yesterday [1], we've touched the topic of module lifecycles. Even though there are some ideas in the air as well as some code written, we haven't reached a state in which we would know how exactly to deal with it. So I'd like to discuss it here with a wider

Re: Idea: let's use Pagure to track Changes

I would definitely love that! Having the ability to list all changes at a single place, comment, and even organise them by tags seems like a way forward. BTW I know that Pagure stores issues in git, so that could solve the history problem, although I don't know how exactly is that implemented.

Re: [modularity] Recommended platform: [] and version 2 format

That's right! This and more is documented in the Modularity section of Fedora Docs: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/defining-modules/ On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:56 AM Jun Aruga wrote: > Just sharing information. > > When talking with a person in modularity team,

Re: Goodbye nvr.rsplit('-', 2), hello modularity

(a repost from the infra list) Please note that modules (and therefore module builds) may reference to multiple RPM builds. Also, the module name doesn't need to match any RPM name. Therefore getting package names from the module build name would not be possible anyway. As an exapmple, see the

[modularity] Contribute to Modularity architecture discussions

Just to make sure this reaches all interested parties, we have some important discussions about Modularity going on in Pagure tickets: Distribution Upgrades (reaching decision) — Handling modules, streams, and defaults during major distribution upgrades. * Tracker:

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

Do we have any user data about what "stability" means to users and on what different levels that can be achieved? Is it about app versions such as MariaDB? is it about language runtime versions such as Node.js? is it about things like glibc? or kernel? Or does it need to be the whole distro as we

Fedora Modularity Classroom for packagers next Tuesday

Hey all, I'll be hosting a Fedora Modularity Classroom targeted at packagers who want to build multiple versions of software on independent lifecycles for Fedora. When: Tuesday, October 09 at 1400 UTC How: Bluejeans https://bluejeans.com/6638527489 (or simply dial MODULARITY) More details:

Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 16:27, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. > If you find any error or would like to change something, don't hesitate to > open ticket or submit pull request for

Re: Building multiple version of a package from same dist-git repo

On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 at 18:21, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 17:51 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Hello, > > > > is it possible to build packages like foo0.6 from dist-git repo with name > > foo and not foo0.6? > > > > Since in Rust ecosystem from time to time we need to build

Re: [modularity] Managing module lifecycles — let's talk!

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:01 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:26:29AM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > > > Would it be necessary for us to pick one or the other here? IOW, > > > whether the maintainer picked a specific date or a release, the EOL > >

Re: Building multiple version of a package from same dist-git repo

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:57 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:32 AM Adam Samalik wrote: > >> >> I thought that Arbitrary Branching (now referred to as Stream Branching) >> was initially developed for Modularity only. >> >> Were there any pla

Re: Building multiple version of a package from same dist-git repo

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 8:02 AM Adam Samalik wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:57 PM Richard Shaw > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:32 AM Adam Samalik > wrote: > &

Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

This is a summary of a recent thread [1]. Traditional branches (such as "f29") have their EOL (end of life) encoded in the name. But what about stream branches [2] (such as "2.4" or "latest")? Stream branches of RPM packages would always have an EOL associated with them. The format would be on

Re: Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

I thought about this for a while, and I can see some conceptual similarities between upgrading a major Fedora release and changing a module stream. I tried to think about major Fedora releases (I mean f28, f29, etc) as "streams" of Fedora, the same way as streams of modules, with stable API.

Re: Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:17 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:16 AM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:58:20PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > > > > Is there a way for users to say "keep me on whatever module is the > default" > > > > when upgrading?

[modularity] Querying modular content — workaround

I've just published a blog post about querying modular content [1] which might be useful if you maintain modules. It should help you, at least partly, in the following example scenarios: Rebuilding dependencies after major changes * A new version of an interpreted language lands in Fedora as a

Re: [Modularity] Working Group IRC meeting minutes (2018-12-04)

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:14 PM Nils Philippsen wrote: > = > #fedora-meeting-3: Weekly Meeting of the Modularity Working Group > = > > > Meeting started by nils at

[modularity] Topics for the Modularity WG meeting today

Sorry for the last-minute email. There are two things I'd like to discuss today in the Modularity WG meeting [0]: I'd like to get the "Stream default changes & Fedora Changes" [1] issue voted on and hopefully off the table — there are already two +1s in the ticket, and it doesn't introduce any

Re: Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:20 PM Petr Šabata wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 03:35:50PM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > > This is a summary of a recent thread [1]. > > > > Traditional branches (such as "f29") have their EOL (end of life) encoded > > in the na

Re: Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:19 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 03:35:50PM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > > There would be a policy that a module can reach its EOL in the middle of > a > > Fedora release to prevent madness. > > Can or can't? I assume you me

Re: Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:54 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 21:43, Richard Shaw wrote: > [...] > > This would take care of most of the complains about people using "git > merge > > master" across release branches (even though

Re: Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:08 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:30 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:43 PM Richard Shaw wrote: >> As a packager, what is your experience with lifecycles of your packages? >> Do you get a specific EO

Re: [modularity] Removing obsolete github repositories with module definitions

1 > > +1 as well. > > P > > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:04 PM Adam Samalik > wrote: > > > > > >> We have some obsolete github repositories [1] from the f26 and f27 > period > > >> we are no longer using. I feel like it mig

[modularity] Removing obsolete github repositories with module definitions

We have some obsolete github repositories [1] from the f26 and f27 period we are no longer using. I feel like it might be confusing to people. So I'd like to remove them all. Any objections? [1] https://github.com/modularity-modules/ -- Adam Šamalík --- Software Engineer

Re: Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:43 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 8:36 AM Adam Samalik wrote: > >> >> So... any comments to the concept? Any ideas about workflows or processes >> of managing the EOL values? >> > > Looking forward to this but I w

Re: Modularity UX Questions

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Last month, we had a Modularity Hackfest in Boston. I wrote up a > hackfest report at the Community Blog[1] back then, which included > several open questions related to how to handle stream and profile > defaults. I'm reprinting them

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Modularity Team (weekly)

Today we'll discuss: #128 Discussion: naming common streams and profiles [asamalik] https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/128 * Last call to make changes in the proposal before it goes to the docs * Ideas about how to align existing modules — renaming streams and profiles will potentially break

Re: Modularity UX Questions

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 2:50 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:36 AM Adam Samalik wrote: > > > When a packager doesn't provide the YAML defaults file at all, I'd > assume it could have been unintentional and notified them about that fact. > However,

Re: [modularity] Bringing order to the confusing module stream and profile names

at 4:39 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:35 PM Alexander Bokovoy > wrote: > >> On to, 14 maalis 2019, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:41 AM Alexander Bokovoy >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On to, 14

Modularity question for packagers about rolling/latest/stable/master streams

Some modules now use "latest", "stable", or "master" as stream names for various different things. It's quite confusing and I want to fix that. Without naming them, I see two different use cases: 1/ "for end users" — rolling stream meant for end users to consume, likely used in projects without

Re: Modularity question for packagers about rolling/latest/stable/master streams

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 3:55 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:25:36AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > So the question is, do people agree there are two? Or just one? Or > more? > > > Upstreams aren't consistent. There's a good argument for making our > branches > > >

Re: Modularity question for packagers about rolling/latest/stable/master streams

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 3:59 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:24:13AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > Without naming them, I see two different use cases: > > > 1/ "for end users" — rolling stream meant for end users to consume, > likely used in projects without

Re: modular repositories in mock configs: please don't

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:13 AM Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Monday, March 4, 2019 10:46:45 AM CET Petr Šabata wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 10:22:05AM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > On Monday, March 4, 2019 10:01:14 AM CET Petr Šabata wrote: > > > > Replying in general. > > > > > > > >

Re: modular repositories in mock configs: please don't

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:26 PM Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 3/4/19 3:04 AM, Petr Šabata wrote: > > You can view them as virtual repositories with dependencies. I > > think that might be the simplest way to put it. > > > > You can try playing with fedmod to generate your modulemd file or > >

Re: modular repositories in mock configs: please don't

I'm glad Modularity is getting popular, however, we should coordinate such big changes so we keep consistency among various build environments. The ability to enable modules in a Koji buildroot is being discussed in a FESCo ticket [1] — although that discussion is a bit longer than initially

Re: [modularity] Bringing order to the confusing module stream and profile names

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:35 PM Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On to, 14 maalis 2019, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:41 AM Alexander Bokovoy > wrote: > >> > >> On to, 14 maalis 2019, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> >On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:58 AM Alexander Bokovoy > wrote: >

[modularity] Bringing order to the confusing module stream and profile names

There are module streams named 'latest', 'stable', or 'master', but it's not quite clear what exactly those mean. Some modules even have the 'master' and the 'latest' streams at the same time which feels quite confusing. In a similar manner, there are various unclear profile names, too.

Re: Orphaned packages that will be retired (and everything will most likely burn)

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 12. 02. 19 10:47, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:17 AM Tom Hughes > > wrote: > > > > So basically the module squad have managed to ensure that everything > > that

Re: Orphaned packages that will be retired (and everything will most likely burn)

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:54 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > On 12/02/2019 10:43, Adam Samalik wrote: > > > I might be missing something here, so excuse me if that's obvious, but > > wouldn't this happen without Modularity anyway? I mean, how does > > Modularity relate to

Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:15 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:09 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > > > > The Modularity Team works on enabling default modules to be present in > the traditional buildroot. The work is tracked here: > https://tree.taiga.io/proje

Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages

The Modularity Team works on enabling default modules to be present in the traditional buildroot. The work is tracked here: https://tree.taiga.io/project/modularity-wg/epic/12 We would love to contributions towards that. I'm willing to mentor anyone interested regarding Modularity. However, we

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Bash 5.0

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:19 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:07 AM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:06:25PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > Please don't do that. You'll basically break the distribution for all > > > third-party packagers. Modules are

[modularity] Policy change: module defaults changes & Fedora Changes

The Modularity Team has published an updated policy regarding changing module defaults and submitting Fedora Changes [1]. Simplified summary: instead of: "Packagers must submit a Fedora Change when changing module defaults." it now says: "Packagers should submit a Fedora Change when changing

Re: Fedora modularity and cyclic dependencies

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:14 PM Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 02:46:49 CEST Mat Booth wrote: > > > > Yes, there is a buildopts section in the yaml file where you can specify > > rpm macros. > > > > Here is the documentation: > > > > >

Re: Modularity tooling intro?

The local module builds we have documented at the moment [1] should work if you have an access to the Fedora infrastructure (==internet connection) and your packages are in the Fedora dist-git. I know that Merlin (merlinm) is working on tooling that allow you to do local module builds without

Modularity vs. libgit

So, I'd like to discuss the libgit issue [1] [2] we're experiencing. With a help of a few people, I've put together this post to get us on common ground: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/modularity-vs-libgit/ There are few ideas about solving the issue right now. But we might be able to

Re: Modularity vs. libgit

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:08 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 23:48 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I just wanted to give you an update from my last discussions on > > #fedora-modularity and other places. > > > > # Problems definition > > > > * Default modules

Re: Modularity vs. libgit

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:28 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:08 AM Adam Williamson < > adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 23:48 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I just

Re: Modularity vs. libgit

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:47 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 13:28 +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > > To keep the expectations of Fedora's stable ABI within a release, we > can't > > change the default stream of a module mind-release. I know, that's > probably

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Minimization Team Meeting

This will be our very first meeting! I'll prepare some agenda before the meeting, but I mostly expect quick introductions, our long-term goals or things we're interested in, ideas, and ideally a plan for everyone for the upcoming week. See you there! Adam On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:02 PM wrote:

Minimization Objective report

Congratulations! You're reading the very first Minimization Objective [1] update. == New Minimization Team == A new team is being formed, having 9 members already! Read the team page [2] for more information, including how to join. Welcome, everyone! == Communication channels == Following are

Re: Join the new Minimization Team

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:24 PM Clement Verna wrote: > On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:25:55AM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > > > I've already done some experiments with that. I used multi-sta

New graphical dependency visualiser prototype

I wrote a script to visualise dependencies of RPM installations [1]. It supports file paths and container images as an input. The script generates a graph of packages and their relations including sizes of all individual packages and some basic clustering. Clicking on a package highlights its

Re: Join the new Minimization Team

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:49 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Here's the scriptlet: > > > > %triggerun libs -- krb5-libs < 1.15.1-5 > > if ! grep -q 'includedir /etc/krb5.conf.d' /etc/krb5.conf ; then > > sed -i '1i # To opt out of the system crypto-policies > > configuration of krb5, > > remove

Re: New graphical dependency visualiser prototype

I've just added support for weak dependencies. On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:38 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:16 PM Igor Gnatenko < > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> How does it deal with rich dependencies? Does it take conflicts into

Re: 'showme' RPM dependency visualizer (was: Minimization Objective report)

Moved: https://pagure.io/minimization/rpm-showme I'm now updating all the references. On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:12 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > Yeah, that's a good point. I might rename the repo as well. Thanks for the > suggestion! > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:15 PM Dusty

Minimization Objective report

This is the Minimization Objective [0] update. Status: Discovery phase == Toolbox == The 'showme' tool got renamed to 'rpm-showme' to make it more discoverable. It has been also moved to a new repository of the same name [1]. New features: * report — generates an html report [2] [3] comparing

Minimization Team Meeting notes 2019-08-28

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-08-28/minimization.2019-08-28-15.00.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-08-28/minimization.2019-08-28-15.00.txt Log:

Minimization Objective report

This is the Minimization Objective [0] update. == Regular meeting == Team meeting every Wednesday 15:00 GMT (find it in the SIGs calendar [1]). == Discoveries == A new discoveries page [2] created that will contain random useful discoveries. It'll get structured as it fills up. Potential

Minimization Team Meeting notes 2019-08-14

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-08-14/minimization.2019-08-14-15.00.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-08-14/minimization.2019-08-14-15.00.txt Log:

Minimization Team Meeting notes 2019-08-21

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-08-21/minimization.2019-08-21-15.00.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-08-21/minimization.2019-08-21-15.00.txt Log:

Re: 'showme' RPM dependency visualizer (was: Minimization Objective report)

Yeah, that's a good point. I might rename the repo as well. Thanks for the suggestion! On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:15 PM Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 8/23/19 6:35 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > Hi, Adam. > > > > On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 a

Minimization Team Meeting notes 2019-09-04

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-04/minimization.2019-09-04-15.00.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-04/minimization.2019-09-04-15.00.txt Log:

Minimization Objective report

This is the Minimization Objective [0] update. Status: Discovery phase == Feedback Pipeline == A prototype is live [1]! It shows packages and an overall size of use cases we are focusing on, installed on top of various Fedora bases. In addition to showing the current status, it will be also

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Minimization Team Meeting

Agenda item: #13 systemd-sysusers versus containers https://pagure.io/minimization/issue/13 On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:00 PM wrote: > Dear all, > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: >Minimization Team Meeting on 2019-09-18 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 GMT >At

Minimization Objective report

This is the Minimization Objective [0] update. Status: Discovery phase == systemd-sysusers == Many packages pull in Systemd because of systemd-sysusers to create new users. This is fine in traditional setups where there already is Systemd, but for containers, that means pulling additional 60MB

Minimization Team Meeting notes 2019-09-18

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-18/minimization.2019-09-18-15.01.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-18/minimization.2019-09-18-15.01.txt Log:

Re: What projects can we highlight for Hacktoberfest?

What about the Feedback Pipeline service [1] I'm working on for minimization? The code [2] is on GitHub and I even have a few issues with things to do. [1] https://minimization.github.io/reports/ [2] https://github.com/minimization/feedback-pipeline On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:47 PM Ben Cotton

Minimization Objective report

This is the Minimization Objective [0] update. Status: Discovery phase == Use case analysis == Removing Systemd dependency from container use cases: -- nginx -- * Pull request to drop systemd as a runtime requirement [1] -- httpd -- * Pull request to drop systemd as a runtime requirement [2]

  1   2   >